Will a Warrior II work for my mission

M

Mafoo

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
1,460
Location
New Hampshire
Display Name
Display name:
Mafoo
Here is what I want an aircraft for:

  • less then 200nm days trip or weekend trips (Yes)
  • Take 4 adults on day trips of 200 miles or less (???)
  • Take 5-6 1000nm trips a year, with just my wife and I (???)
  • Pilots for Paws trips (Yes)

I keep looking at RV's, but if I can get one of these for half the cost, take some friends on short trips from time to time, and go backpacking with it, why not?

So it takes me a few hours more to get 1,000 miles. Who cares. A day is a day. Still faster then comercial travel.

Also, if I get one now, that's a few thousand dollar savings on my PPL, as I still have 20 hours to go @ $150 rental.

Never been in a Warrior II. How does it compare to a C150 or C172?

And thanks everyone over the last few days that have posted in my numerous posts about this. Just trying to obtain as much information as I can.
 
  • less then 200nm days trip or weekend trips (Yes)
Yeah.
  • Take 4 adults on day trips of 200 miles or less (???)
Iffy. Watch your weight and balance. Really it's a three adult plane.
  • Take 5-6 1000nm trips a year, with just my wife and I (???)
Yeah.
  • Pilots for Paws trips (Yes)
Yeah.



Never been in a Warrior II. How does it compare to a C150 or C172?

No comparison to a C150. It's basically a C172 class airplane.
 
I think it will do fine. Watch the W&B and plan fuel loads accordingly with the four POB (Persons on Board, sometimes called BIS - butts in seats).
 
Mafoo said:
Here is what I want an aircraft for:

[*]Take 5-6 1000nm trips a year, with just my wife and I (???)
Click to expand...

Do you have a specific trip in mind which is really 1000nm? Or are you just thinking of occasionally taking lengthy trips to various places. I ask, because 1000nm is a long day of flying in a plane like that especially if you've got a headwind and you're slogging along at 95kt ground speed. I think it'd be fun a few times but could get really old after a year. But, I probably haven't read enough of your other posts, and maybe you (and your wife!) would really enjoy it.
 
I don't consider the Warrior a four place plane. Usually, for trips, people have a littel stuff with them too. Of course fueling to the tabs helps. An Archer or any 180 HP plane would be more versatile, but also more expensive.

In addition, long trips will be tiresome. Droning along at 90 - 100 knots or less with a bit of a headwind, and that is realistically how fast you'll be going for 1,000 N.M. would not be what I consider a good ride. YMMV.
 
dukeblue219 said:
Do you have a specific trip in mind which is really 1000nm? Or are you just thinking of occasionally taking lengthy trips to various places. I ask, because 1000nm is a long day of flying in a plane like that especially if you've got a headwind and you're slogging along at 95kt ground speed. I think it'd be fun a few times but could get really old after a year. But, I probably haven't read enough of your other posts, and maybe you (and your wife!) would really enjoy it.
Click to expand...

KLEB to KAXN. right around 1000NM

They would be week long trips, and I could take the weekend to get there.

So hang out somewhere in northern Michigan for an afternoon or something, and make it a two day trip would work.

I really want it for the 200m weekend kind of trips. The other is for "well I have have plane, why not" Kind of thing.

The realistic problem of the 1000nm trips, is they are work related, so if the weather is bad, I am screwed. In the end I will probably let the pros take me there.

I could use this plane to get my IR, and once I have it, upgrade planes.

Hmm... the more I am thinking about this, the more I like the idea.
 
1,000nm trips in a 110 knot airplane arent that bad. Just gotta be ready to stay the night somewhere if you have unfavorable winds.
 
If I put myself, wife and kid in a Warrior II plus full fuel, that's max gross. Unless you and your whole family are small, I don't see that as enough airplane for you. An Archer would work (much) better. The extra 20 HP makes all the difference; useful load is closer to 1000 lb than 800.

And it means no high density altitude ops unless you're light (under 2100 lb). Maybe you and the wife and fuel to the tabs.

It would work fine for the rest of your list.
 
My Warrior has an 879lb useful load and hold 50 gals of fuel.
 
Anthony said:
I don't consider the Warrior a four place plane. Usually, for trips, people have a littel stuff with them too. Of course fueling to the tabs helps. An Archer or any 180 HP plane would be more versatile, but also more expensive.
Click to expand...

I live in Lebanon NH. The thought is to take a day trip with friends down to New Port Road Island (80 minutes), head up to Portland (40 Minutes), over to Quebec (90 Minutes), to the Cape (95 Minutes), or even to Long Island (100 Minutes).

Because we can get to these places so quickly, it would just be for the day, and we won't bring much with us.

I love living in New England, where so many things are so close.
 
Mafoo said:
KLEB to KAXN. right around 1000NM

The realistic problem of the 1000nm trips, is they are work related, so if the weather is bad, I am screwed. In the end I will probably let the pros take me there.
Click to expand...

If you need to there on time, don't fly yourself in a GA airplane less than a turbo or turbine powered radar equipped FIKI airplane. :wink2:

Given that, the comments about useful load are spot on for the rest of the missions.

Cheers
 
Mafoo said:
I live in Lebanon NH. The thought is to take a day trip with friends down to New Port Road Island (80 minutes), head up to Portland (40 Minutes), over to Quebec (90 Minutes), to the Cape (95 Minutes), or even to Long Island (100 Minutes).

Because we can get to these places so quickly, it would just be for the day, and we won't bring much with us.

I love living in New England, where so many things are so close.
Click to expand...

Then a Warrior would probably work, but I still wouldn't put four in it, but that depends on the size of the pax too and fuel.

I rented a Warrior before I bought my Cherokee 140B, and had a lot of good trips with them both. The Warrior is a good solid choice for weekend getaways. Then I bought the Tiger.
 
You'd need a Lance or a Skylane to do four and carry gas. Then again, you can always purchase a Warrior for the majority of your missions and rent a Skylane when you need to carry four. Or just buy a Cherokee 6.

A thousand nautical trip will put a strain on any aircraft, there aren't many that you can do a trip like that and not peal yourself out of the seats after. What the other boys said about IR and FIKI is spot on, you rarely go those sort of distances without hitting some heavy wx. GA aircraft really don't have that kind of dispatchability.
 
If every prospective owner adopted this common-sense philosophy the decision-making process would be much more rational. They get their tiny minds wrapped around the axle on cruise-speed and gotta-have-full-tanks-and-full-seats capability and completely miss the big picture that you aptly described.

Mafoo said:
So it takes me a few hours more to get 1,000 miles. Who cares. A day is a day. Still faster then comercial travel.
.
Click to expand...
 
steingar said:
A thousand nautical trip will put a strain on any aircraft, there aren't many that you can do a trip like that and not peal yourself out of the seats after. What the other boys said about IR and FIKI is spot on, you rarely go those sort of distances without hitting some heavy wx. GA aircraft really don't have that kind of dispatchability.
Click to expand...


I did trips from Philly to Denver, and back when I lived in Denver on a semi regular basis. 1325 NM. No trouble at all. Three hour legs, two legs a day, for two days. If I did it in one day, then I'd be pealing myself out of the seat.
 
If all compression for each cylinder was at 70/80 on a 1800 SMOH engine, would you worry?
 
Mine are all 75/80, and I still worry.
 
Yes, to almost all your points. The Warrior is a wonderful flying machine, in same class as the C172. Fill to the tabs and you can fly four adults (of average size...not four NFL players!) The 1,000 mile tris are doable but realistically a couple a year is probably all your butt will stand. I could be wrong.

It's also a good platform for pursuing your instrument rating.
 
Is the price discounted to reflect a run-out engine?

Mafoo said:
lol, well I mean would it be a reason to walk away from an aircraft, or is it still good?
Click to expand...
 
While youbcan never really know, well maintained o320 engines routinely fly 3000 hours and more, especially if you fly a lot.

It is amazing that you can get that much plane, for that little money. The market surely has changed in the last few years!
 
If you like the Cherokees, you could get a great older PA-28-180, which is a much better airplane with 4 aboard.

Some people even prefer the old wing.
 
Or throw a Grumman Cheetah into the mix. :devil:
 
I own an 83' 28-161. It does your stated mission well for a reasonably low acquisition price point. So long as you don't attempt to haul C-182 or piper dakota weight profiles in there on a consistent basis, it will get your mission done fairly cheaply. I recommend the post 78 models since the wheel pants are good for an additional 7 knots over pre 78. That's huge when both vintages go for the same money.

The fuel economy is actually very competitive. I get vintage non-injected mooney mileage on mine (a tad shy of 14NMPG). What you are not getting for your money is of course climb rate and cruise speed. 200NM at 100-110KGTS is cake. Difference between 110 and 140 is 22 minutes on a 200NM trip, not worth the purchase premium nor the added expense of moving internals on props and swing gear, never mind the deal breaking 30K purchase premium over the faster sample.

I fly mine 420NM solo and it's bearable. Even two up and bags it's no issue in the Texas lowlands. The 4 hours that it takes with headwinds gets old quick though. Once or twice a year for the long trips it wouldn't be a problem for you.

I run my engine hard and it likes it.It's got around 2100 SMOH and it's giving me an honest 110KTAS @ WOT 8000. The extra 10 gallons it has over the 172 makes it a much more formidable airplane for such an extended mission set, particularly during IFR trips. To think they're cheaper than 172s makes me feel I'm stealing.....but then I remind myself of the one-door shenanigans and realize why that must be the case. No free lunch I guess.

Do I think a Grumman Tiger is a better airplane? Absolutely. I just simply couldn't afford the purchase price and I still needed to get where Im going this past year, so the Warrior was it. It has served me well. For the folks who can't break over that 50K price point, the warrior offers a 75% solution that really can't be beat without running into range problems found in the certified 2 seater market (think O-320 AA1 or C-150)

I also second the comment about the cheetah. You're definitively getting 180HP Cessna/piper fixed gear speed for a lot less horsepower. I will say that my warrior's climb rate is anemic and wonder just how atrocious the climb rate must be on those cheetahs in the summer considering their wings are slicker and the props are running cruise pitch to get book numbers. I wouldn't consider one unless it had the 157ish HP STC applied to it. Tigers are aggressively priced in this economy. It is so because you just can't beat 135KTAS on fixed everything and 10GPH non-injected cylinders (think CHEAPER by HALF!). The thing is literally the closest you can get to an RV on the certified market.

Good luck!
 
hindsight2020 said:
I own an 83' 28-161. It does your stated mission well for a reasonably low acquisition price point. So long as you don't attempt to haul C-182 or piper dakota weight profiles in there on a consistent basis, it will get your mission done fairly cheaply. I recommend the post 78 models since the wheel pants are good for an additional 7 knots over pre 78. That's huge when both vintages go for the same money.

The fuel economy is actually very competitive. I get vintage non-injected mooney mileage on mine (a tad shy of 14NMPG). What you are not getting for your money is of course climb rate and cruise speed. 200NM at 100-110KGTS is cake. Difference between 110 and 140 is 22 minutes on a 200NM trip, not worth the purchase premium nor the added expense of moving internals on props and swing gear, never mind the deal breaking 30K purchase premium over the faster sample.

I fly mine 420NM solo and it's bearable. Even two up and bags it's no issue in the Texas lowlands. The 4 hours that it takes with headwinds gets old quick though. Once or twice a year for the long trips it wouldn't be a problem for you.

I run my engine hard and it likes it.It's got around 2100 SMOH and it's giving me an honest 110KTAS @ WOT 8000. The extra 10 gallons it has over the 172 makes it a much more formidable airplane for such an extended mission set, particularly during IFR trips. To think they're cheaper than 172s makes me feel I'm stealing.....but then I remind myself of the one-door shenanigans and realize why that must be the case. No free lunch I guess.

Do I think a Grumman Tiger is a better airplane? Absolutely. I just simply couldn't afford the purchase price and I still needed to get where Im going this past year, so the Warrior was it. It has served me well. For the folks who can't break over that 50K price point, the warrior offers a 75% solution that really can't be beat without running into range problems found in the certified 2 seater market (think O-320 AA1 or C-150)

I also second the comment about the cheetah. You're definitively getting 180HP Cessna/piper fixed gear speed for a lot less horsepower. I will say that my warrior's climb rate is anemic and wonder just how atrocious the climb rate must be on those cheetahs in the summer considering their wings are slicker and the props are running cruise pitch to get book numbers. I wouldn't consider one unless it had the 157ish HP STC applied to it. Tigers are aggressively priced in this economy. It is so because you just can't beat 135KTAS on fixed everything and 10GPH non-injected cylinders (think CHEAPER by HALF!). The thing is literally the closest you can get to an RV on the certified market.

Good luck!
Click to expand...

This is a fantastic response.

I used to own a 2001 convertible Porsche 911 that I bought used for $36,000 back when that was an amazing deal.

I learned a valuable lesson in that exchange. One is being able to afford to buy something, is not the same as being able to afford to own something. While the price of the car was well within my price range. When a small oil leak was a $12,000 repair, I realized I had no business owning a $100,000 car, no matter what the cost of admission was.

I know I can buy more plane then this, I am just worried about owning more plane then this.

The money I don't spend on acquisition, can be applied to ownership.
 
however I don't want to buy the plane, and then put $18,000 into it next year. Why I am asking if 70/80 in all 4 cylinders @ 1800 SMOH means I have ~200 hours to go, or can this engine last to 3000 hours with it being at these paramaters now?

I just don't know what to worry about, so I am trying to educate myself. :)
 
Engine goes until it goes. Could be you fly years on it, could be it breaks tomorrow. Maybe the more mechanically inclined can give you some sort of my educated view, that's mine.

All that said, there is no difference for any of our engines at any point. They're machines, and they can break. That's why we run all those engine-out drills.
 
steingar said:
Engine goes until it goes. Could be you fly years on it, could be it breaks tomorrow. Maybe the more mechanically inclined can give you some sort of my educated view, that's mine.

All that said, there is no difference for any of our engines at any point. They're machines, and they can break. That's why we run all those engine-out drills.
Click to expand...

Right, but if there was no education of when it's a good time to change it, everyone would just run it until your engine stopped.

I thought when you got an anual, you looked at the numbers, and then made an educated decision if it's time for an overhaul. Is that not true?

If it is true, what numbers are you looking at, and what values make you decide?
 
Mafoo said:
Right, but if there was no education of when it's a good time to change it, everyone would just run it until your engine stopped.

I thought when you got an anual, you looked at the numbers, and then made an educated decision if it's time for an overhaul. Is that not true?

If it is true, what numbers are you looking at, and what values make you decide?
Click to expand...

Everybody is saying "it could go tomorrow, or it could go to 3000 hours" and that's true. But if the compression are really 70 right now, it's gonna need a top overhaul at some point in the next few years, esp if you don't fly a ton. Just make sure that's priced in.
 
Almost of my engine experience is with USAF and other DoD turbine engines but the philosophy can be applied to pistons.

We ran all engines with "on condition maintenance". We check oil for wear indications, tracked the number of cycles, did periodic borescope looks, tracked time at temperature, and a few specific other things depending on the engine design. We used to just yank them when it reached a specific number of hours (TBO) but that was just a semi arbitrary number which meant a small number crapped out before and most could have run longer with no problem.

OTOH, any device can fail at any time for any reason but "on condition" greatly reduced inflight failures and was definitely more economical.

If you want to get an indication of general health, do oil sampling, pull the plugs and borescope the cylinders, if you can see the cam look for wear and a number of other things a good engine mechanic can do to tell you the likelihood of running past the TBO.

I have no clue what the regs say about exceeding the TBO so this may all be irrelevant. :D. But it is a good idea to give an engine mech the chance to check the engine out as well as the airframe if you are permitted to do so by the current owner. If they refuse, I would walk on by.

Cheers
 
gtmule said:
Everybody is saying "it could go tomorrow, or it could go to 3000 hours" and that's true. But if the compression are really 70 right now, it's gonna need a top overhaul at some point in the next few years, esp if you don't fly a ton. Just make sure that's priced in.
Click to expand...

So if I fly every week for 3 hours, that means the engine will last longer then if I fly once a month for 3 hours?

That's counter intuitive.

EDIT: and is the only way to get the compression up a MOH? I know so little about this :(
 
Mafoo said:
This is a fantastic response.

I used to own a 2001 convertible Porsche 911 that I bought used for $36,000 back when that was an amazing deal.

I learned a valuable lesson in that exchange. One is being able to afford to buy something, is not the same as being able to afford to own something. While the price of the car was well within my price range. When a small oil leak was a $12,000 repair, I realized I had no business owning a $100,000 car, no matter what the cost of admission was.

I know I can buy more plane then this, I am just worried about owning more plane then this.

The money I don't spend on acquisition, can be applied to ownership.
Click to expand...

If a $12k Porsche repair was unpalatable to you, how is a $12k overhaul going to feel?
 
Mafoo said:
So if I fly every week for 3 hours, that means the engine will last longer then if I fly once a month for 3 hours?

That's counter intuitive.
Click to expand...

That may be but it is also true, especially for the airframe.

Airplanes need to fly rather than sit and rot. Just like you, bad things happen if you don't exercise the plane regularly. :yes:
 
X3 Skier said:
If you want to get an indication of general health, do oil sampling, pull the plugs and borescope the cylinders, if you can see the cam look for wear and a number of other things a good engine mechanic can do to tell you the likelihood of running past the TBO.
Click to expand...

It's in its anual right now. Will any of the things you stated be done as a matter of course? Will it be in a report somewhere that I can look at?
 
FWIW, 70/80 on compressions is no worries at all to me; unless a cylinder is leaking through an exhaust valve, that's a healthy cylinder.

If oil pressure is good, it's not making metal and it's developing rated power, I'd fly it and be happy. A Lyc 320 will typically tell you - a long time in advance - when it needs attention.
 
In standard weather, or cooler temps, four on board is no problem, but always do a weight and balance no matter what, know for sure. In hot weather, don't fudge on the weight and balance.

Warriors live up to the POH predictions uncannily. I was up at Big Bear, DA over 8,000'. Going through the graphs gave me a 200' a minute climb rate. It was straight out over the lake from the runway, so I departed. 200' per minute is precisely what my climb rate was.

Also, I had just recently had a brand new equipment list, along with a current weight and balance done, at a cost of $1,400.00 from Piper and my mechanic. My calculations were spot on. Most older planes accumulate a lot of weight over the years, so POH based calculations usually don't agree perfectly.

Four big hefty folks in a Warrior is probably a bad idea, but then I've never tried it. My friend Bob, who is an instructor was telling me about a three hundred + pound student using a Warrior. They had to put a 75 pound weight in the baggage compartment to get the balance to work out.

-John
 
Depends. If oil sampling/analysis has been part of the MX program, the report will show amounts and trends of various metals in suspension. If not, you get the compression readings, which don't really mean much on a one-time basis and can be jiggled to show whatever the mechanic wants to show. Two cylinders on my plane showed low (but within tolerances) last year and mechanic didn't even bother to re-check, as the problem would either get better (we thought) or continue to worsen this year. Both were back in normal range with the others at this year's inspection.

Mafoo said:
It's in its anual right now. Will any of the things you stated be done as a matter of course? Will it be in a report somewhere that I can look at?
Click to expand...
 
Mafoo said:
So if I fly every week for 3 hours, that means the engine will last longer then if I fly once a month for 3 hours?

That's counter intuitive.

EDIT: and is the only way to get the compression up a MOH? I know so little about this :(
Click to expand...

It's counter intuitive from an engine wear point of view but very intuitive from a corrosion point of view. Setting time between engine runs is corrosion time so one month is much worse than one week.

Run the engine fairly hard and compressions may increase. My compressions are up over the four years I've owned the 'kota. I may not push'em real hard but I don't spare the horses. They're made to run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top